>In the rarest cases do people come out of it as a positive passionate person. Even the successful ones become a hedging, scheming, lukewarm, slimy academic per

>In the rarest cases do people come out of it as a positive passionate person. Even the successful ones become a hedging, scheming, lukewarm, slimy academic personality. Everything encourages this. The way you get professor positions, the way you get grant money etc. It optimizes and chisels people into becoming the antithesis of curious, open scientific inquiry. Got a point there, all kinds of academic pressure other than the push for scientific progress. There should be more than one way to outperform what you could do in such an environment, or in the industrial counterparts following that pattern. >Several have given up and went to industry. I think worked for these bozos before, not fun but milestones are milestones. >Ideally in an alternate universe of different incentive structures that support real science, a person would work in research, use existing approaches in different scenarios, push and prod them in different use cases then perhaps once every year you'd stumble upon some interesting effect you don't understand. Then you'd dive in and prod this specific effect with well designed experiments. Once it's clearer what is going on, you come up with the best way to convey this newly earned knowledge. It is at this point (once you actually know what you want to alert the research community to) that you decide how to best present the knowledge, what tables, sections and paragraphs will succinctly and ergonomically convey the information. That's what I did on my home planet. Had to build my own laboratory. Works better than you would think.